that being said i went to a movie tonight. before i tell you what it was i will also tell you that it didn't cost me anything...i had a free pass. when you read what i have to say you'll understand why i felt compelled to say that
so read on...
(p.s. this is not a review per say and i will ruin the film for you...)
this evening my sister and i partook in a little (BIG) movie called 'in good company'. plot wise i think the movie was about the following:
boy feels no love as a child, boy goes to college and gets business degree, boy advances quickly up the corporate ladder and makes tonnes o' cash, boy's wife leaves him and he flounders, has a quickie rebound relationship (what the ads make the movie look like it's about), finally boy learns that life isn't about money or corporate sloganeering (ie: synergy and cross-promotion...). he learns that you should only involve yourself in the high-stress corporate world if you really like it...the man who teaches him all of this...a man who truly loves it (after a very rousing speech about humans and team work etc...) happens to be older and surprisingly (?) wise...so boy finds his passion, old man has a baby and rebound girl enjoys her time at nyu...
basically.
on the surface i didn't hate this movie...it was cute. it made my heart a little happy and the male actors were able to express a healthy amount of physical affection for each other without the writers throwing in more than one gay joke (and the one that was in there came from the stereotypical "vp asshole" character...) it's funny but it seems that with big movies when men express physical affection for each other it is often accompanied by an excessive amount of macho bravado...not this time... so that was one good thing.
on the flip side i hated this movie and here's why: the whole point behind this movie, at least as i saw it, was 'don't buy into all that bullshit corporate propaganda...live your passion even if you'll never own a porsche...and even if you already own a porsche it's not too late...'; a message i'm all for, believe me. i am uncompromising in my 'live your passion' attitude and i will NEVER own a porsche... :)
now in order to make a movie such as this, all slick and glossy, you need money. and how do you get money? product placement! so this seemingly anti-corporate film in filled to the fucking brim with pepsi and porsche adds. our young hero at the peak of his game goes out and buys a porsche, followed immediately by a close-up sweeping shot of the candy blue porsche. later, at the low point of our hero's movie day, he has been punched in the face and hold an ice cold diet pepsi up to his throbbing eye...followed of course by a close up of the can sweaty with refreshing condensation...so denis quaid gets his 20mil. or whatever and i get thristy so i go out and buy an ice cold pepsi and perhaps tomorrow a porsche to satisfy my desire to appear heroic in the eyes of strangers...
and here's what i hated even more...
anyone who knows me will tell you that i am huge music junkie...it's heroin for me...so i get really excited when i hear good music in a movie. this little (BIG) movie was full of GREAT music (iron and wine, the shins, damien rice, etc...), all the shit that the indie kids like me are all over; but the music was 100% inappropriate. they played one of the most beautiful pro-love songs in history as our heroic boy wonder's marriage was breaking up...all this music said to me was 'ah...another fine example of cross-promotion'...not, 'wow! that really enhanced that scene for me...'
allow me to explain:
according to howstuffworks.com (http://stuffo.howstuffworks.com/music-licensing.htm) music licensing is big time business and record companies are doing it all the time. see the record companies own the actual recording of the song and the artist retains the copyright on the lyrics and the music and the 'intellectual property' after a song is recorded and copywrited it can be sold to films or television or radio. here are some of the actual numbers as far as $$ goes:
-Low-end TV usage (e.g. -- music is playing from a jukebox in a scene, but no one in the scene is paying any attention to the music) -- free (for exposure) to $2,000 for a 5-year license. In a film, the fee would be $10,000 in perpetuity. [and that's low end...it can get up towards towards 1mil. +]
-A more popular song is worth more, perhaps $3,000 for TV and $25,000 for film.
-A song used as the theme song for a film might get $50,000 to $75,000.
Commercials fetch even more money: "a song can command anywhere from $25,000 to $500,000 plus per year. The typical range for a well-known song is $75,000 to $200,000 for a one year national usage in the United States, on television and radio."
it's all really fucked up to me...but i understand why an artist like sam beam or a lable like subpop would do it: they cannot compete with the 4 (yep, only 4-ish) major labels and it costs money to make art and perhaps better it come from 'art' then from say, a cigarette company...i dunno but... i just bugs the shit out of me when i go and watch a movie full of cool music and a pretty decent (albeit cheesy) message sold to me by pepsi and a cool indie lable...
fortunately i already have the albums that the 4 or 5 coolest songs came from...and (without meaning to sound like a HUGE snob...) i found them all on my own...(ugh, that was pretty snobby eh?)guten nacht internetland!
xo alice
1 comment:
You're a music snob like i'm a swimming snob. I'll walk by the pool and critique people's flip turns and stroke patterns. I can't help it, it's just something I do. Also: Pepsi called, they want you to work on their next commercial...apparently the Strokes sold out and they want you to direct the whole thing. Contact me for more info.
Post a Comment